(Haven’t watched the video yet); As a spiritually-inclined person who is also vegan, I do think that is something that other religious people need to come to terms with. Particularly when it comes to witchy and neopagan communities, there’s too much (ie., more than zero) interest in reviving the dead practice of animal sacrifice.

On the other hand I would like to see some data on which proportion of people in each religion are vegan. Which belief systems have the highest percentages of vegans, relative to their own populations?

Yeah but that was given consensually (ostensibly), so it’s still vegan.

It’s implicit in their stance against exploitation. A chicken, for example, cannot give their eggs to a human, with informed consent, and therefor taking their eggs is a form of theft and exploitation.

That’s also my hunch - that Buddhism in particular has a high percentage of vegans. I still would like to see the data though.

There are established criteria of what defines a cult, and any spiritual belief system is not necessarily a cult, unless it meets all of that criteria.

Okay, but that’s a whataboutism and has nothing to do with animals. Think about the lowly bee, for example. People often get tripped up when it comes to bugs and veganism. They’re smaller, and must be dumber right? And anyway their minds work in such an alien way to our own that we can’t assume they even perceive things the way that we do.

And yet if you poke a beehive, the behavior of its inhabitants appears to be something that’s functionally identical to anger, and they begin defending their colony in a way where they seem to be expressing something that strongly resembles a lack of consent to having their home assaulted. So even in this case of such a vastly different kind of animal it’s natural to conclude that any taking of their honey is not wanted - not consented to - and thus is a form of exploitation.

There’s nothing absurd about valuing consent.

What do you mean?

Proof?

How is it not a whataboutism? You’re talking about a completely different form of exploitation that has nothing to do with animals (unless we’re talking about habitat destruction displacing wild animals).

If a dog is excited to see you, and trying their best to chase your hands with their head, is that not a form of the dog giving you consent for pets? Animals to some limited degree can give consent for things like that at least. But most other things, if they can’t give consent then you should assume that you shouldn’t do the thing.

A chicken has eggs for their own reasons. They can’t give consent to give them away, but be realistic - do you really think there’s a chance that a hen would consent to you taking what she believes are going to be her children? They are not yours to take. Why is my position of respecting consent and not exploiting animals absurd, as compared to concluding wholesale that they just can’t give consent and therefor… what? Do we just do whatever we want to them?